So you want to subpoena a party’s e-mails?By George S. Bellas and Steve FordCivil Practice and Procedure, November 2014Many courts across the United States have quashed subpoenas on the basis that an Internet service provider cannot be compelled to disclose a party’s e-mails pursuant to a civil subpoena.

Sharbono v. Hilborn: The use of PowerPoint at trial—More than just demonstrative evidence?By Richard L. TurnerCivil Practice and Procedure, July 2014The case of Sharbono v. Hilborn presents an interesting discussion with respect to the use of technology at trial, and whether a PowerPoint presentation can be properly classified as either “demonstrative” or “evidentiary,” as well as the necessary foundation for the use of such technology/demonstration at trial.

Case notesBy Paul J. Cain and Angela RollinsCriminal Justice, June 2014Summaries of the recent cases of People v. Pikes and People v. Cleary.

Illinois business records: Getting them in at trialBy Paul B. PorvaznikCommercial Banking, Collections, and Bankruptcy, December 2013In Bank of America v. Land,the Fifth District discussed the content and reach of the business record exception to the hearsay rule in the context of a mortgage foreclosure suit.

The Illinois duty to preserve ESI: A bridge over troubled watersBy George S. Bellas and Rebecca Pucinski KeithleyCivil Practice and Procedure, March 2013Due to the dramatic increase in the use of digital technology in business today, the time is ripe for the judiciary and practitioners to take note of how electronically stored information is gathered and used at trial.

Reply briefs: Who speaks last to the court?By Ambrose V. McCallFederal Civil Practice, September 2012The Smith v. Bray opinion aids efforts to provide reply arguments, within the context of summary judgment, because the Seventh Circuit clarified that parties who were prevented from responding to new evidentiary issues at the trial court level will receive that opportunity on appeal.

Don’t be intimidated by DUIs with blood evidenceBy Erica NicholsTraffic Laws and Courts, August 2011Each type of blood draw has its own legal requirements for admission into evidence at trial. It is these requirements that provide the opportunity to defeat the blood evidence.

Sanctions and spoliationBy Hon. Barbara CrowderCivil Practice and Procedure, August 2011Knowing the potential and most frequently used sanctions may assist counsel in evaluating what steps to take when faced with the loss or destruction of evidence.

Obtaining documents abroad: A primer for Illinois attorneysBy Timothy J. Chorvat and Matthew A. WlodarczykCivil Practice and Procedure, May 2011A look at the law relating to obtaining documents from sources abroad, and some suggestions on how to maximize the likelihood of obtaining useful information.

So your client has given you physical evidence of a crime…By J. Randall CoxTraffic Laws and Courts, May 2011On the one hand, the delivery to the attorney is a communication which the attorney is required to protect. (Rule 1.6) However, an attorney is not to unlawfully obstruct another party’s access to evidence. (Rule 3.4) How is this conflict resolved? The courts of Illinois do not appear to have directly addressed this.

Presenting the evidence: Direct examinationBy Hon. Barbara CrowderCivil Practice and Procedure, December 2010The careful attorney will prepare for direct examination by deciding the facts that need to be proved via direct examination, then prepare for the actual examination, and finally prepare for the pitfalls that invariably occur when real people testify.